No More Earmarks , he said.

I agree with what you are saying Rev. Once again, I point out that I've been talking about earmarks in relation to an individual bill. It's a fact that earmarks do not add spending to an individual bill.

Yes, the downside of earmarks is that a congressman may vote for a bill he otherwise wouldn't. Unfortunately I don't think this is as big a problem as people would like to think. Our congressmen are not in the habit of voting against much of anything that spends money.

 

Do you even read the articles posted? It was Heritage that said that Collender's statement was true. Heritage is against earmarks.

 

Yep..I should have known better than to ask you to engage in a reasonable debate. You can't manage to do that without engaging in a personal attack of some sort.

 

So if there were no other earmarks to go to where would those funds go to in your mind?

 

The money would still be spent. It's just the decisions on exactly where it is spent are decided by other people. Again, to quote from the article you posted (and Heritage said this quote was true).

 

Not according to every source out there about earmarks. I've quotes Ron Paul telling you different. Revmitchel has quotes Heritage telling you different. Both Ron Paul and Heritage strive to be fiscally conservative and are against government spending. Why would both these sources lie about it?

 

Ok you did not answer my question. If all earmarks are come to and end where would the money go?

 

You are misrepresenting Heritage They do not agree with your final conclusion

 

I think it is you that is misrepresenting. I agree 100% with Heritage. Heritage and I both believe that earmarks do not add additional funding to a bill. We also both believe that earmarks could cause a congressman to vote for a bill when he/she otherwise might not. Where am I misrepresenting them? That's exactly what they represented in the article you posted.

 

Oh, Heritage are politicians now? It's you who is coming off as ignorant and stupid here carpro. I've done my research and come to conclusions based on that. You, however, have not provided a single reference for any of your opinions. You haven't given a shred of evidence that earmarks increase the spending in an individual bill. Until you provide that evidence, you continue to show your inability to do anything but spout off ill informed opinions.

 

Did you even read the title to the Heritage article?


"Earmarks Encourage Spending and That’s No Lie"

Now answer my question

 

So what is the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending and if all earmarks were eliminated where would the money go?

 

Are you reading what I am saying? I specifically said, "We also both believe that earmarks could cause a congressman to vote for a bill when he/she otherwise might not." So, Heritage and I have the same conclusion, yes earmarks could cause higher spending because bills could pass that might not otherwise pass. Heritage and I both also agree that earmarks do not add spending to an individual bill. It's really as difficult to understand as you are making it.

 

Ask carpro, he's the self proclaimed expert on mandatory and discretionary spending. I'm not in school, you aren't my teacher, and I'm not taking a test .

 

So what is the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending and if all earmarks were eliminated where would the money go?

 

Ok look I asked you reasonable questions because I am trying to understand how you come to your conclusion. Maybe you know something about earmarks other than what you have said that will show me. So do you not know the answers? I am struggling to understand, also why you avoid answering my questions. But if you cannot answer them then how do you reach your conclusion?